Category Archives: rule 702

Confirmation Bias: Foe of Justice and Truth

  
“Confirmation Bias” has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. It is a mindset we all are susceptible to in the way we see the world. ‘Confirmation Bias’ is a psychological phenomenon that explains why people tend to seek out information that confirms their existing opinions and overlook or ignore information that refutes their beliefs.’

“Confirmation bias” can lead to misdiagnosis, researching errors, missed evidence and analytical flaws in our every day thinking. That’s why it is important to always try and strive to keep an open mind when you investigate claims, research legal issues and critique the analysis of your experts as well as those of your opponent.

In medical malpractice cases for example, the doctor can start off with a predetermined idea as to the cause of the patient’s medical problem. This can result in the doctor ignoring or overlooking important evidence which would lead to an accurate differential diagnosis.  The patient’s suffering is prolonged and exacerbated because the wrong treatment is given.

In the relm of criminal litigation, police and prosecutors may prematurely focus on a prime suspect and ignore other persons who could potentially be responsible for the crime at issue.  The popular Netflix docu-series “Making a Murderer” about Steven Avery is a classic example of how this can occur.  The focus of the investigation is prematurely narrowed. As a result, investigative leads are ignored. Evidence is overlooked and lost forever.  

An excellent book, “The Innocent Man” by John Grisham also documents the same type of errors.  The belief of the police, that they had their man, blinded them to the truth.  This resulted in an innocent man, Ron Williamson, being wrongfully convicted of a crime he did not commit.  At one point, Williamson was five days away from being executed.  Ironically, the actual perpetrator of the crime sent the police chasing the false lead and caused the State to prosecute  and convict the wrong man (Ron Willamson) of the murder along with another man.  This man’s only crime was being Ron’s friend and refusing to give false testimony implicating Ron Willamson in a rape-murder neither of them committed.  Thanks to the Innocence Project, both men years later were released and exonerated through DNA testing performed on the victim’s clothing.

Such informational bias and prejudice on the part of juries may make a fair verdict impossible or very difficult to obtain. You must deal with this problem in your voir dire examination and seek leeway from the court to thoroughly explore such biases.  This requires the use of mock juries, jury questionnaires, individual examination of jurors, adequate time for jury selection and in some instances a change of venue or venire. 

Social media, sensational news articles and reader comments can pollute the jury pool.  Bias and unsubstantiated claims fill the air of the community.  These must be explored. In this regard, please read the article below:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-08/how-facebook-makes-us-dumber

So keep an open mind and it just might be the key to your case. 

The Case Against Experts in the Courtroom

20120227-001826.jpg“If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.” Albert Einstein

I have always thought it is unclear whether Indiana Rule of Evidence (IRE) 615 applies to depositions. IRE 101(C) states:

Rules Inapplicable. The rules, other than those with respect to privileges, do not apply in the following situations:

(1) Preliminary questions of fact. The determination of questions of fact preliminary to admissibility of evidence when the issue is to be determined by the court under Rule 104(a).
(2) Miscellaneous proceedings. Proceedings relating to extradition, sentencing, probation, or parole; issuance of criminal summonses, or of warrants for arrest or search, preliminary juvenile matters, direct contempt, bail hearings, small claims, and grand jury proceedings.

Interestingly enough, no mention of depositions is made in the proceedings excluded.

Ind.T.R. 30(C) states in part:

Examination and cross-examination of witnesses may proceed as permitted at the trial under the provisions of Rule 43(B). *** All objections made at the time of the examination to the qualifications of the officer taking the deposition, or to the manner of taking it, or to the evidence presented, or to the conduct of any party, and any other objection to the proceedings, shall be noted by the officer upon the deposition. When there is an objection to a question, the objection and reason therefr shall be noted, and the question shall be answered unless the attorney instructs the deponent not to answer, or the deponent refuses to answer, in which case either party may have the question certified by the Reporter, and the question with the objection thereto when so certified shall be delivered to the party requesting the certification who may then proceed under Rule 37(A).

Ind. T.R. 32(B) states:

Objections to admissibility. Subject to the provisions of Rule 28(B) and subdivision (D)(3) of this rule, objection may be made at the trial or hearing to receiving in evidence any depositions or part thereof for any reason which would require the exclusion of the evidence if the witness were then present and testifying.
* * *

(D) Effect of errors and irregularities in depositions


(3) As to taking of deposition.

(a) Objections to the competency of a witness or to the competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony are not waived by failure to make them before or during the taking of the deposition, unless the ground of the objection is one which might have been obviated or removed if presented at that time.
(b) Errors and irregularities occurring at the oral examination in the manner of taking the deposition, in the form of the questions or answers, in the oath or affirmation, or in the conduct of parties and errors of any kind which might be obviated, removed, or cured if promptly presented, are waived unless reasonable objection thereto is made at the taking of the deposition. ***

Ind. T.R. 43(B) then reads:

Evidence on motions. When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions.

My take away from all of this is that if you want to use the deposition at trial or in connection with a motion for summary judgment, then the rules of evidence would apply. Also, if you do not object to the presence of the expert at the time of the deposition pursuant to IRE 615 the objection is waived because it could have been obviated by the opposing attorney by ordering the expert to leave. If the opposing attorney disagrees then you would have to hope you win the issue at trial or stop the deposition and immediately file a motion to terminate under Ind. T.R. 30(D).  As a result, I would think a court would find IRE 615 applicable to a deposition.

That being said, I think having an expert present to aid you in examining another expert would usually be “a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party’s cause” under IRE 615(C). In Ledden v Kuzma, 858 N.E.2d 186 (Ind.Ct.App.2006), the Kuzmas sought a protective order barring Ledden’s expert from attending Ledden’s deposition of the Kuzmas’ expert witness. The Court of Appeals stated:

Under appropriate circumstances, it may be proper for a protective order to be granted barring an expert -or anyone else – from attending the deposition in question. If a party is able to meet the requirements of Trial Rule 26(c)(5), then a protective order would be warranted. But if, as here, a party is unable to provide any particular and specific demonstration of fact in support of the request for a protective order, then there is no reason – based in logic or rule – to bar the expert from attending the deposition.

Generic allegations of prejudice were made in Ledden v Kuzma.  A factual demonstration supported by evidence of real harm seems to be required given the holding in Ledden v Kuzma.

Trial is a different thing. The argument for the a separation of witnesses is weaker at the discovery stage since you may need the help of your own expert to pin someone down at the pretrial discovery stage whether investigation is needed. While IRE 615(C) does allow a party to designate a person whose presence is essential to their presentation to be present in the courtroom, this creates practical problems and raises concerns about “fairness in administration” and “the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined.” See IRE 102 Purpose and Construction.

When I had this occur in a trial, I successfully argued that the defense expert is not allow to watch the trial and weigh evidence as this is the sole province of the jury. IRE 702(A) states:

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.

Allowing expert to attend the trial and opine is a kin to having a shadow jury. Such a process misleads the jury as to an expert’s true role which is to aid the jury in deciding the case, not supplant them. Trial testimony by the expert could run afoul of Rule 704(B) since the expert would in essence be testifying as to whether a witness (including your expert) testified truthfully by opining after watching all the witnesses testify.  Also, Ind.T.R. 26 requires that the basis and opinion of an expert be seasonably disclosed before the trial. An expert’s opinion would change and morph as the trial progressed. The expert, not the jury, would resolve questions of fact, credibility and the weight to be given witness testimony and items of evidence. Such expert testimony could impair or deprive a party of their constitutional right to trial by jury.

So, what do you think?

%d bloggers like this: